In a Washington Blade editorial last week (March 14), editor Kevin Naff drew attention to the ongoing disputes between the newspaper and leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). He also cast light on a troubling David and Goliath scenario that could inhibit any LGBT journalist.
The unfortunate result for the Blade is a sense that it's being intimidated into backing down on coverage. But the paper needs to remember — and embrace — its mission as a valid member of the Fourth Estate and pay less credence to critics who may not fully appreciate the role of the LGBT press.
In his March 14 opinion piece, Naff reported that after he chastised DNC Chief of Staff Leah Daughtry in a Feb. 8 editorial, he was contacted by two attorneys representing Daughtry, saying they had complaints about the paper's coverage of her. (They also made a point to say they were not speaking for the DNC.)
In a half-hour phone call last weekend, Naff told me the attorneys expressed dissatisfaction with coverage of Daughtry, specifically regarding references to her religion. (She is a Pentecostal minister, something previously covered by Newsweek and The New York Times, Naff says.) They also felt the DNC's side wasn't being represented in coverage of a lawsuit involving fired gay DNC employee Donald Hitchcock; they felt that the Blade was biased on the side of Hitchcock.
Plainly and simply, the attorneys and journalists disagreed about the coverage, but Naff says the meeting's tone escalated to a disrespectful level. As he reported in last week's editorial, it was “beyond contentious” with “cursing and threatening.” Naff tells me that when asked why the attorneys wanted the meeting in the first place, they said they were there to warn the Blade that if the paper planned to continue covering Daughtry, they would be watching. Naff said he felt the attorneys were trying to scare and intimidate them.
Web site PageOneQ.com last week asked the attorneys for comment about Naff's version of events and was told, “the meeting we attended was not at all contentious.
The Result: We have a he said/he said situation about what took place during the meeting. But whether it was the attorneys' intended course of action or not, the fact is that Naff and his colleagues felt pressured to back off — to the point of intimidation — and we should take that at face value.
The fact is that LGBT media perform an important function: To cover news for a niche audience that is often underrepresented in mainstream media. It's been an important mission for decades in early publications such as ONE magazine and the Ladder (both started in the 1950s), the Advocate (which first published in the mid-1960s), the Washington Blade (first published in 1969) and countless regional publications across the country.
In the end, the LGBT media deserve as much respect and attention as mainstream media, and I have just one message to Naff and the Blade, as well as other journalists working in LGBT press: Keep up the good fight. Continue to do your job, follow your ethics, question political motives and open the public's eyes and ears regarding how governmental process works.
There's a reason journalists subscribe to the tenet of a "free press," whether in mainstream or niche media. It's our job to cover politics, bureaucracy and governmental leaders, not to mention our communities, and we have no room for apprehension and scare tactics in our pursuit of the truth.
Naff and his staff should remain steadfast in focusing on good journalism and responsible reporting — and pay no mind to intimidation, whether blatant or perceived.
This op-ed ran in the Washington Blade on Friday, March 21. Click here for the accompanying news story. E-mail NLGJA National President Eric Hegedus with your questions about NLGJA's mission and work within the news industry.
